Stan Lee Park
Player Valuation: £20m
We already have lots of players in this category.
- Status
radiostar
Player Valuation: £20m
With this being such an unprecedented situation i think clubs will be ok to pay players for the extra months and generally players will be happy to continue playing.
Think we could see quite a few "gentlemens agreements" in play.
But, if a player has a contract, a legal document, how can any football body change that or it's terms and conditions ?
I would be with you Blueblue again back to the Ziyech example if he has signed a contract from 1st July, chelsea probably would have to pay him even if he is ineligable until the current season is over.
bluenorthwarrior
Player Valuation: £8m
Yes, hard to know for sure. It says Chelsea have 'completed signing' but also at end 2019/20.
Not clear if that means ink on paper, and for end of 2019/20 that might just be a common journalist phrase used before COVID struck rather than meaning the date changes with the season.
Will be interesting when some of these agreements become live as it would appear unlikely season will be complete by 1 July so we will at some point find out.
I find it difficult to see an alternative.
The implications of a serious injury would be huge.
If we were to play Niasse during that period and he got a career ending injury we would then almost definitely be sued by him for many millions of pounds... which would add insult to injury for us.
rubbish, contracts are ran down to their end because one party wants out,
bluenorthwarrior
Player Valuation: £8m
Not sure what grounds an injured player would have for suing the club in that scenario. If the player agrees a short term contract no different to getting injured at any point in a normal contract, including in last game of the season when running down their contract to leave on a free - the only liability is the value of the remaining contract, not future earnings.
As footballing injuries are part of the game the clubs are not held liable unless there is some form of neglect that can be proved.
If the player has a lucrative offer on the table elsewhere they have the option of refusing a short term extension and sitting on their hands for a few months to avoid any risk of injury. By agreeing a short term contract they by default accept the risk of an injury.
I think the key point is all parties would need to be in agreement for it to happen. A player who is out of contract and hasn't signed a deal elsewhere might look at this as an opportunity to raise profile and increase his value, some players will simply refuse to play because they cant risk the injury, while clubs will pick and choose who they need out of those out of contract.
So you are proposing to a business in Chelsea, that an asset they have paid tens of millions for, knowing he was available to play in July, can't? If I am Chelsea (or Everton for that matter) I am seeking legal action for this as you have changed the rules part way through.
A better example may well be, what if you are a league 1 footballer, 23-4. You've bobbed around the lower leagues, earned maybe on average 1k p/w, not bad money but certainly not life changing. You're at 2k now, but a championship team is going to pay you 10k p/w over a 4 year period. There's a big sign on fee too of £250k. Essentially you can clear your mortgage and earn enough across that contract to be financially secure for the rest of your career.
Now the club you want to sign for, say that unless you are available to play, as per the contract from July 1st the offer will have to be withdrawn. What you are essentially advocating is a change in the laws that is going to infringe upon an employees right to practice their trade. As I say, good luck with that. You will be sued. I hope FIFA have deep pockets to be prepared to honour all of those contracts (and there will be plenty) that are lost.
The FIFA situation is not (as I see it) a change of rules. They have made a suggestion. The are covering themselves legally, so if/when UEFA/FA/PL say they can't do anything but void because of FIFA's controls-go after them, that is now off the table. You can understand most statements from the perspective of weasel behaviour trying to avoid being sued.
Unless FIFA are happy to underwrite the costs of contracts for players who aren't able to be used, wages for players who are to be kept at clubs, and the differential I'm wages for offer they have on the table (which will run into the hundreds of millions) then you may as well forget about extending the season. We can all make big statements. Someone is going to have to underwrite the costs.
From an Everton perspective that shouldn't be us. If a handful of teams want to continue the season, they can pick up the tab.
Lots of this. Lower down the leagues as well, lots of lads refusing to play for their respective teams. Then teams rightly saying the competition is wholly unfair when they have less of a squad. A litigation nightmare.
Yep - again see your point & the league one example is a really good one, but as I said re Ziyech; to the best of my understanding he would simply be ineligable to play for new team during this season irrespective of when it is played. He is not registered and while he might be a player for his new club, he cannot play in this competition.
& again, you are right it is a legal minefield, but what I have argued since day one in this thread, that every outcome results in a legal catastrophe & the "just void & be done with it" is equally as complex as what you have raised above
But then, if every player and club has the right to extend the contract or not , what is the point ?
A club facing relegation or chasing top four could lose a player because he doesn't want to extend is immediately at a disadvantage.
It has to be a rule for all or none.
I think you could get sued for loss of earnings.
If a new contract was already in place with a new club who are not now going to pay wages to a player that was injured while playing for a previous club... who does pay ?
bluenorthwarrior
Player Valuation: £8m
As I said, in that case no one (including FIFA, uefa etc) can compel the player with a contract at a new club to agree to play for current club beyond 30 June. If he agrees then he takes the risk himself.
I agree completely with your post above though that this sets up an unfair situation where for example niasse might agree to a short term contract and therefore play out the season for Everton, but for example willian might not at Chelsea as he doesn't want to risk injury and a lucrative contract elsewhere so they end up an attacker down for last 9 games.
This is part of the reason why carrying on after 30 Jun is not as easy as some seem to think.
- Status
